What Would Creationists Think?

The pandoravirus, image created using an electron microscope, courtesy Chantal Abergel and Jean-Michel Claverie

I decided I’d break from the True Love’s Kiss series for a bit after this article about newly discovered “pandoraviruses” caught my attention. They’re enormous in virus standards, with 250 times the genes of an average virus- that’s like your seven year old cousin standing next to the Eiffel Tower. However, the most amazing aspect of this discovery is how unrelated these organisms are to anything we know; we can only figure out where 7% of their genes came from. The other 2300 genes are completely new to us- when did their ancestors split with ours, why did they evolve to be so large? I am left completely in awe of the remarkable things our world produces, like us Homo sapiens.

And that inspired me to write about some of our wonderfully stupid flaws that should make even the most devout question the idea of some intelligent designer. WWCT: What Would Creationists Think?

Too many teeth. Like, seriously. We have way more than we need, and it’s kind of a problem. We have to remove them or they go all crooked and make it hard to eat.

WWCT: Obviously God gave us extra teeth because in the old days they were always getting knocked out by barbarians and we needed to be able to fill the space. Nowadays he doesn’t take the extra teeth away because they make sure dentists and orthodontists have jobs. God is a job-creator. How many jobs has Obama created?!!

Science: Our ape ancestors have huge jaws and large teeth to grind with. When humans started to cook and eat softened food, the energy that went into making these jaws was better spent elsewhere, perhaps brains. Thus, our jaws and teeth began to get much smaller, but it never caused a large enough problem to give individuals with fewer teeth a disadvantage. We simply never evolved to have fewer teeth, and it’s a nuisance now.

My back is a hot mess. We humans have super fucked up backs. They curve in funny ways and cause chronic pain and are super easy to injure.

WWCT: I’m pretty sure slouching is what makes your back hurt, so God gave us bad backs to encourage good posture and standing up straight to get really close to Heaven. Yep.

Science: This’ll be easier with a picture.

spineOk, so we share an ancestor with chimps. That ancestor had a spine like chimps do today, where it’s a curve in the same direction all the way along. Our ancestors had some variation where the lower spine started to curve the other way, and that allowed them to have the advantage of standing up. Wooh, bipedality! The spine in our neck also had to curve backwards so we could hold our heads up straight. While this is a mechanically viable option, it puts a lot of weight stress on certain parts of our backs, so they hurt sometimes.

Our eyes are pretty much backwards. Light passes through several layers of cells before it actually gets to the part of our eyes that detect light. Blood vessels and stuff are in the way, which give us blind spots. Super inefficient.

WWCT: Well… ok, I’m not sure exactly…. The eyes are really complicated and there’s no way they could have evolved because I don’t understand how that could have happened, therefore God! Showed you, huh? *smirk*

Science: You’re using the God of the Gaps, but you aren’t even using it right because we’ve already shown how eyes could evolve in steps. First came light sensitive cells, then those cells dipped inwards and allowed for some directional sense. The rest of the steps- the aqueous and vitreous humor, retina, lens, iris, pupil, cornea- all gave greater detail and clarity and developed over time.

Problems with longevity. We’re just not very good at living. Our bodies fall apart and organs fail and it sucks nugget.

WWCT: God didn’t intend us to live so long, because He wants His children back in Heaven with him sooner and also longer life means more time for sin. Modern devil-science extended our lives, but that is against His plan.

Science: Nah, bro. With modern medicine, our species hasn’t been forced by selective pressures to evolve with longer-lasting organs. The elderly are cared for and have already passed on their genes anyway, so there’s nothing for evolution to even act on.

Maybe God just didn’t have an eraser…

So if God really did design us, he did a pretty bad job. I don’t think he even went to engineering school first. A much more reasonable explanation is evolution. What do you think?

A Christian and an atheist break down an argument for design

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!

First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!


I received a comment on a previous blog article of mine about the argument from design, and wanted to respond to it more thoroughly than a simply reply comment. Below is the submitter’s comment copied-and-pasted, with my full response.

Submitted on 1/25/2012 at 3:27 AM
Unklee writes:

Nice sounding arguments Dave, but which of the following premises do you disagree with?

1. The character of our universe is determined by physical laws and constants.
2. If these laws and constants had been different, life would probably not have arisen.
3. The laws and constants which led to this suitability for life must have been determined by either physical necessity, chance or design.
4. The laws and constants have not been determined by physical necessity.
5. The laws and constants have not been determined by chance.
6. Therefore our universe was designed.

Hi Unklee, thanks for your comment. I’m just going to address this one after another:

1. The character of our universe is determined by physical laws and constants.

- Physics “laws” are just observed patterns of interactions. I don’t think it’s accurate to say “determined by.” The universe has them, from what we can tell, but that’s all we can conclude from that directly. We don’t know if they’re constant everywhere and we don’t know if it’s always had them the way we observe them now. We don’t even know if our observations are ultimately correct, because the only way we can check our work is by repeating the same method we used the first time (i.e. by trusting that information from our senses is a reliable path to knowledge about objective reality, under the condition that this information is consistent or within acceptable margins of error on repeated experiment, otherwise known as science). Also, what do you mean by “character”?

This came up when I googled "character." I don't know why.

2. If these laws and constants had been different, life would probably not have arisen.

It depends on how different those constants had been. It’s certainly conceivable that life would have grown up differently or possibly even not at all, depending on the chemicals available, the amount of time (if a hypothetical universe were to exist for only a few seconds, it’s pretty unlikely life would be able to develop in it), and other factors. I disagree with using the word “probably” here, as we only have a sample size of 1 observable universe and one planet with life that we know of. Since we can’t see outside of our universe, we have no one way of knowing otherwise, and can only speculate.

Even on this single planet we have everything from bacteria and archaea to fungi, blue whales, pterodactyls, humans, beetles, and trees. One study published last year estimates that 86% of species on this planet have yet even to be named. Who knows what kinds of life could be on other planets or indeed other universes? Perhaps there is even non-carbon-based life waiting to be discovered even within our own universe. Just pulling straight from Wikipedia: “While the kinds of living beings we know on Earth commonly use carbon for basic structural and metabolic functions, water as a solvent and DNA or RNA to define and control their form, it is possible that undiscovered life-forms could exist that differ radically in their basic structures and biochemistry from that known to science.”

"ALF" stands for Alien Life Form, although suspiciously, he breathes air, gets around just fine in Earth gravity, and they apparently have cats on his planet, too.

3. The laws and constants which led to this suitability for life must have been determined by either physical necessity, chance or design.

- What’s the difference between physical necessity and chance?

4. The laws and constants have not been determined by physical necessity.

- Need an answer to #3 before I can respond to this one. Do you mean that our universe would not have existed or lasted as long as it has if the laws were vastly different? I agree with that. We don’t know why our universe displays exactly the patterns of behavior that we observe it does, or indeed if these patterns have always been constant or even if they are constant everywhere now. We simply have no way of knowing that.

5. The laws and constants have not been determined by chance.

- I don’t think we have any decent way of ruling this out, but I’m very interested in your reason(s) for thinking that we do, as it seems to be the crux of the design argument in general.

6. Therefore our universe was designed.

- While it’s a possibility, I think it is remote at best, and has the major flaw of introducing an even worse question: If our universe is designed by some intelligence, then where did that intelligence come from? Now we are really getting into ad-hoc territory, speculating about the origin of an entity for which we have only circumstantial evidence of its existence in the first place!

If we’re assuming design, we’ll need to address this question of origin regarding the designer, too: Either this intelligence created itself, has always existed, or was itself created. If it was itself created, than we’re back to square one. If it has always existed, then we are violating parsimony by adding an extra, unneeded step in our logic, rather than the more-reasonable solution: that the universe itself has always existed. (Side note: We have to be careful about using terms like “always existed,” because time itself doesn’t exist without the expansion of the universe, which didn’t start happening until the Big Bang).

The Big Bang (click to enlarge)

Since the always-existed hypothesis doesn’t agree with observation—the universe appears to be about 13.7 billion years old—we can more-or-less rule that out. So, the only answer that’s parsimonious, fits observation thus far, and doesn’t answer the question with an even bigger question, is the provisional belief that the universe “created” itself, although I prefer a term more like “originated” or “initiated,” as these are fittingly less anthropomorphic.

I think the best answer to the question, “Where did the universe come from?”, based on what we’ve covered here, is this one:

“We don’t know, and we may never have enough information to say with absolute, 100% certainty, but the answer that fits all our observations the best so far is that the universe simply came from nothing.”

Lawrence Krauss recently wrote a book explaining why (and how) he believes the universe came from literally nothing, a position with which Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, and many others agree. Seeing as they are all qualified astrophysicists, I’m inclined to take their word for it until or unless new evidence comes along that they’re incorrect, which is what I meant above when I said provisional belief.

I think ultimately, the argument from design boils down to what’s known in logic as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance. This is a logical fallacy. Although the argument is generally stated something like, “The universe could not have come about the way it is unless some intelligence did it,” I think a more-accurate wording is, fairly, “I don’t understand how the universe could have come about the way it is, unless some intelligence did it.” In order to conclude that it must have been an intelligence, we would first have to rule out all other possibilities, including a conspicuously more-parsimonious one, which I don’t think we can do at this time.

I encourage you to read the book by Lawrence Krauss linked two paragraphs up, or watch him give this talk (see video below) about the same hypothesis. It should help you understand how the universe could have come from nothing. If, after watching it (or reading the book), you think that you have a way to disprove it, PLEASE post your reasoning in the comments below.

Something to note: As good scientists seeking the truth about how our universe works, we would never say that we accept a hypothesis, only that thus far, we have failed to reject it. This is because of the problem of induction. So even if we were able to absolutely rule out the a-universe-from-nothing hypothesis, that does NOT prove intelligence design nor even suggest it as the next-best possibility. All it would do is narrow down the possibilities from (at least) 3 hypotheses to (at least) 2. Our options are: 1) the universe originated itself through some natural, non-intelligent process 2) the universe has always existed 3) the universe was created by some intelligent entity. Again, there are problems with both #2 and #3: #2 doesn’t fit with observations and #3 just raises the bigger question of where that intelligence itself came from. Additionally, there could be even more hypotheses than these 3 that we haven’t thought of yet. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: Right now, we have a hypothesis that’s parsimonious, fits the data, and doesn’t introduce more questions than it answers. I think that’s about as close as we can get to knowledge in this area unless or until we find strong evidence that we’re wrong. Ball’s in your court, Unklee!

Aforementioned Lawrence Krauss talk:




(573) 424-0420 cell/text

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an

YouTubers: Evid3nc3Thunderf00tTheAmazingAtheistThe Atheist ExperienceEdward Current,NonStampCollectorMr. DeityRichard DawkinsQualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta ChristinaPZ MyersThe Friendly AtheistWWJTD?Debunking ChristianitySkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

Embarrassed by PZ!? I think not.

Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!

Please join our group on Facebook.

Moshe Averick, a creationist rabbi, posted a blog entry the other day, asking if we atheists are embarrassed by PZ Myers. His assumption  is based off a criticism that PZ gives of Intelligent Design in one of his talks. PZ uses an analogy to show how complex things can come about through natural processes. The analogy he uses is that of driftwood on a shore, a complicated mixed-up pile of driftwood that a person probably could not recreate without looking at it. He juxtaposes this with a brick wall, which has a purpose, is much simpler than the pile of driftwood, and was intelligently designed by man.
Averick’s problem with this, which he struggles to accurately explain, is that PZ is using a straw-man argument. Averick states:

In any case, no self-respecting ID theorist would ever use the term “complexity.” The terms that are always used are “functional complexity” or “specified complexity.” In other words, complexity that achieves some pre-determined goal, complexity that clearly functions towards a specific purpose. The argument is that “functional complexity” and “specified complexity” clearly are the result of intelligent intervention. A pile of driftwood is immediately recognizable for exactly what it is; a random, disorganized, purposeless collection of….well, driftwood! To describe this argument as flawed logic would be misleading; we first would have to dignify it by labeling it as some form of logic in the first place. It is not flawed logic, it is simply ridiculous.

For the moment I will the fact that Intelligent Design proponents do use the term “complexity” and that “functional complexity” or “specified complexity” are therefore, not the always used. I will give him, that PZ Myers’ analogy does not address these “special” forms of complexity. This is, however, no reason to be ashamed of PZ. As I stated earlier, the ID community frequently uses the term complexity without these modifiers, which I have just heard about in this article (Granted, I don’t do much research on Intelligent Design, as I prefer my fiction reading to include more adventure).  This would be a straw-man if PZ was directly addressing Averick, or people who regularly use these term, but that is not the case.

Furthermore, these “special” forms of complexity do nothing to help the Intelligent Design Proponent’s cause. They now also have to show that life is complex in a way that “achieves some pre-determined goal”. In order to do so, it would really seem like some consciousness would have to exist already in order to desire such a goal. If so, they must now prove God’s existence, or at least that of a consciousness that created life and wants it to achieve this unknown goal. Both of these seem to be unlikely conclusions to come to given the evidence we are provided with, and in Averick’s own opinion, we should not ignore fact and logic in favor of an agenda.

To answer Rabbi Averick’s question, No, I am not ashamed of PZ Myers. I am in fact proud to have such an intelligent man supporting the  causes of skepticism and rational inquiry. In fact, I see nothing in your post that actually gives reason one should be ashamed, unless you think that his use of the word “Fuck” is reason to be ashamed of him. In which case , Fuck no! I am a bit fucking fond of the word myself.

Finally, if you think that functionally or specifically complex things are proof of something having been created, perhaps you should consider that the concept of God seems to clearly function towards a specific pre-determined goal, much like a brick wall…

Granted, brick walls aren’t intended to prevent rational thought.

Tony Lakey, President of MU SASHA, is a sophomore at Mizzou majoring in philosophy & minoring in sociology. He posts updates to the SASHA blog every Friday (He plans to anyway)